ADC 108

Customer Asset Reporting Status Code SB

for Unmatched Credit Followup

1. ORIGINATOR:

a. Service/Agency: DLA

b. Sponsor: Supply PRC Chair, Ellen Hilert, DLA DLMSO/J6411, DLMSO, 703-767-0676 (DSN 427), ellen_hilert@hq.dla.mil 

c. Functional Point of Contact: Ms Brenda Meadows, J-332

2. FUNCTIONAL AREA: Finance/Supply

3. REFERENCE: DOD 4000.25-7-M, Military Standard Billing System 

(MILSBILLS)

4. REQUESTED CHANGE:

a. Description of Change: Revise MILSTRIP SB Status to 

reflect additional usage on MILSBILLS FTB, Reply to Followup for 

Credit Status. This will support a response to the customer 

indicating that there is no match on document number in response 

to a credit followup under the Material Reporting Program (i.e., 

directed material returns). 

b. Procedures: Revise MILSTRIP AP2.16, Status Codes, to read 

as follows:

CODE EXPLANATION

CUSTOMER ASSET REPORTING TRANSACTION STATUS CODES

SB Rejected. (Use on DI FTR or FTB.)

(1) Report garbled and incomplete. Corrective 

action cannot be determined. Review entire 

contents, correct, and resubmit if appropriate 

(Assign a new document number if a new asset report 

is submitted.). 

(2) When provided in response to a MILSBILLS DI 

FTP, Followup for Credit, this status indicates that 

the supply source has no matching document on file. 

Research, correct, and resubmit, if appropriate. 
5. REASON FOR CHANGE: 

 a. BACKGROUND: Once a creditable MRP status (promise) is 

provided, further communications should be under MILSBILLS FAE/FAR 

procedures. MILSBILLS FAR (replies) and associated billing status 

codes cover this particular and other “where-is-my-credit”

situations. However, when the FTB and FTP processes were 

transferred from MILSTRIP to MILSBILLS, the extensive system 

changes which would be required to transition to FAE/FAR processes 

were not viewed as justifiable. Therefore, it was decided to keep 

the MILSTRIP processes, including MILSTRIP transaction status 

codes to avoid the redesigns needed. This resulted in the gap 

identified by this change proposal.

b. Current Problem: DLA identified a situation occurring in 

Business System Modernization (BSM) processing where customers are 

sending in followups for credit for customer returns where the 

system (in this case SAP) has no record of the document number. 

There was logic in the DLA legacy system, SAMMS, to reject these 

with SB Status. However, that status really does not describe the 

situation accurately. Under BSM there is no method to respond to 

the customer. 

6. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

a. Advantages: In the current environment, it is more 

feasible to redefine SB to specifically add language which states 

“no record of this document number,” than to create and implement 

either a new Billing Status Code or a new Customer Asset Reporting 

Status Code. 

b. Disadvantages: Perpetuates a misalignment of this 

process.

7. Alternatives: 

a. Since this is fundamentally a financial issue, the 

alternative would be to submit request for new Billing Status 

Code. These are used in replies to requests for billing 

adjustment, duplicate billing, or billing status. 

b. The MILSBILLS Administrator suggested several 

alternatives for the overall process: (a) transfer the processes 

to the FAE/FAR;

(b) transfer or restate all FTB/FTP related FT_ processes to 

MILSBILLS; (c) transfer the FTP and FTB back to MILSTRIP and 

insure “financial requirements” are adequately covered there; 

e.g., add “new” billing status code equivalents to the transaction 
status codes.

8. IMPACT: Undefined.